"Not to be a complete ass" ... but then proceeds to be a complete ass. People love to preface statements that they know are going to be rude.

If you need to preface a statement like that, reword it so you're being polite. The bit in question just as easily could have said "Hey, Thanks for releasing this! Do you know when the source code will be available? Thanks for all you're hard work"

I don't think asking the author to comply with the license, or at least enable others to comply with the license, is being a "complete ass".

Aside from whether or not he was being an ass, he was incorrect. The license are rights the author grants other people. The author can release binaries without sources or under any license they desire; just because they also release it under the LGPL does not compel them to provide sources when they distribute it.

This is true, as long as the "author" is a single person or someone who has been assigned the rights to all the code by everyone else who has contributed.

If you are releasing work on a (A/L)GPL project you started, but others contributed to without giving you other rights, you can't distribute their contributions without releasing the source.

Not trying to excuse this demand, just pointing out the technicalities. The most important point in my eyes is that with no evidence of intent to keep the source concealed for a significant amount of time, the idea that anyone would pursue a complaint under the GPL in this situation is nonsense.

It should have been "When will a source release for this be available", but the user decided to be an asshole instead and make a demand by invoking the license—even if this was required, it was stupid in context.

Exactly. so many people don't have a clue about GPL and LGPL. If you're the originator you have more rights than people who you make it available to.

Regardless of the legal situation, it would be very unusual to release something under a GPL-like license without the source, since then no one else could comply with the license since they would be unable to provide the modified source.

I think we can agree that it would not at all be weird to expect that GPL-licensed project would provide the source. Any project with multiple contributors may be legally compelled to do so. Simply asking for it is probably not being a complete ass, even if the author was wrong about the legal ramifications.

At most it could perhaps be "annoying" or a "slight ass". Being a "complete ass" would perhaps be insisting after an initial request was rebuffed or whatever.

> Regardless of the legal situation, it would be very unusual to release something under a GPL-like license without the source, since then no one else could comply with the license since they would be unable to provide the modified source.

Each releases of the software can have different licenses. This means that if the author released a new version of the software binary without the source code nor any copyright notices (like Gorden did) it is not yet released under LGPL. So nobody need to comply LGPL until he releases the source code with the license.

Even if the binary is released under LGPL without the source code, although it is odd, people still can comply the License because it is LGPL - people just need to provide a way how to link the new binary.

Their request implies a deadline where non exists, and was inconsiderate to the charity they were benefiting from. Also their use (static linking) would have made one more product that Author would get emails about when said product wasn't rebuilt to support newer boards. Basically they're at best an entitled asshole, at worst an entitled asshole leeching profit.

IANAL, but fundamentally I view licenses as grants of rights to non-copyright holders. As the (I think) sole copyright holder on the WiringPi code, the author is morally, if not legally (again, IANAL) entitled to do whatever the hell they want, irrespective of any licenses the code has been released under.

As sole copyright holder, the author is also legally allowed to do whatever the hell they want with it.

Ah, that makes sense. I assumed Danielk knew what he was talking about, but I suppose not.

The meaning of "last straw" is that each issue on its own is just a small hinderance, but at some point the sum becomes too great, and one of those small hinderances just happens to be the last straw.

Assuming the project stands alone (I can't check right now), the author can release it however they want. The license governs how other people use it, not the author and copyright owner.

The owner of the copyrights is under no obligation to release their code just because they've previously released earlier versions under the GPL.

Given the multiple years various well known routers and other small dedicated devices can go without the necessary source code appearing, getting stroppy when the Pi 4's been out barely 5 weeks (this blog entry is dated 6th Aug, Pi 4 release was 24 June) is a hell of a stretch.

I don't know how quickly Gordon put up the deb file he mentioned, but just going on Pi's release I'd call it very quickly. A week or two later is more suited to an enquiry of "Glad to see pi 4 support so fast, any idea when you might get chance to put up source code?" than "hey you're REQUIRED man, get on with it already...". Better still quietly not enquiring already but just quietly checking github over the coming weeks.

It's a subtle thing for sure. Just because he prefaces it with "not to be an ass" doesn't justify being an ass.

Overall, it's still phrased in a demanding way.

He wasn't being an ass, DanielK was. It's HIS original software, he can distribute as he pleases.

That's right. I was quoting DanielK.